Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 2

= February 2 =

05:16:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Akhilnair1101
Was not aware that Wikipedia had an issue with all sources originating from a single source. I went back and added more information and also found information from different sources (news websites). I am not affiliated with the Heatwave radio and I have no intentions in marketing for them.

Akhilnair1101 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

07:04:51, 2 February 2021 review of draft by Ufilm
Ufilm (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what help and advice would you like? Fiddle   Faddle  10:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

07:57:57, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Niranjanvivek
Niranjanvivek (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You resubmitted it with no substantive changes or no changes at all. What did you expect to happen? Fiddle   Faddle  09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

08:09:42, 2 February 2021 review of submission by אור פ
this draft has been re-submitted after a consensus regarding its contents has been reached with User:Scope creep and User:chicdat and following their advice to do it.

אור פ (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You had made an edit which hid the content. I have unhidden it. The draft is not currently submitted. You need to inspect it to see if what I have done meets your needs, then submit it Fiddle   Faddle  09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the subject is notable due to the detoxify procedure which is recognised internationally and has references on at least 3 continents, by a cursory search. Personally I can't see what is wrong the tone of the article. I did send a message to User:chicdat to investigate it, but he never replied, probably not in. But I do think sufficiently notable to pass Afd and it is sufficiently referenced.   scope_creep Talk  10:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , might I suggest you submit by proxy and accept it? Fiddle   Faddle  10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't editing that day. He's improved things a lot. Yes, I support accepting it. Can we get someone uninvolved to do it? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  (almost did  ). 🐔 Chicdat   Bawk to me!  11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I get notifications either way! Fiddle   Faddle  11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, by your alt account, . 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you hit the resubmit button so it can be progressed,     scope_creep Talk  11:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * i hit the resubmit button, thank you User:scope_creepאור פ (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Fiddle   Faddle  11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you all!!! אור פ (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Easy to do. Keep working to this standard and you will achieve many more articles. Might there be a WP:DYK available from this article?  If so then now is the time.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 11:18:45, 2 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tudjazka
Tudjazka (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft has zero content, did you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

15:26:13, 2 February 2021 review of submission by SteveBrown01
SteveBrown01 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello;

Below is 1 company page. I reviewed their references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Surgical_Implants

There is another company with similar independent references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigicon_Innovative_Urological_Solutions

Products and company names were mentioned in 3 scientific articles in Nature magazine. (Independent.) When we look at the Zephyr page, the same things appear there.

It is being taken off the air continuously. Can you help with the creation of this page?
 * Please see other stuff exists as to why this is a poor argument. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
 * Who is "we"? Accounts are for individuals only. If you are associated with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

'''I have nothing to do with the company. But it is a title with the same independent sources.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBrown01 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, who is "we"? With 6 million plus articles, it's hard to weed out every inappropriate one. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

15:51:38, 2 February 2021 review of submission by 82.28.77.161
we have added to the bio and added press relating to Liv 82.28.77.161 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not cite ourselves. Get rid of every single citation to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

19:20:55, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Barouy13
Hello, last time I resubmitted this page for review I received very helpful feedback in terms of getting this page draft approved. I followed all recommended advice (including and would appreciate if someone could take review the page draft once again. Thank you!

Barouy13 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rejected drafts usually cannot be resubmitted, but since it was rejected in October, you could probably submit a fresh draft(such as "JumpCloud (2)". However, most of what remains in the draft is routine business transactions, which does not establish notability. See WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

23:12:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Nomorewriting
I'm wondering why after I've provided at least 20 non-press release articles they have been deemed, insufficient, not noteworthy or insignificant. It's a little odd to me considering my uncle has a wikipedia page that he wrote himself. Is it because he's obviously a man? I've found multiple articles stating that women who contribute to wikipedia or try to create wikipedia pages about other women are usually given the same response - your information, subject, person is insignificant. If they manage to get an edit through it's almost always edited back.

https://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ https://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/more-like-dude-ipedia-study-shows-wikipedias-sexist-bias#:~:text=But%20whether%20you're%20sensitive,across%20Wikipedia's%20millions%20of%20articles.

Now is that because they really are insignificant? Or are they insignificant to wikipedia because they lack a penis? Every draft I've submitted has been reviewed by a man and deemed insignificant and since I've provided a number of reliable resources in which the subject of my wikipedia article is the subject of the source, I'm thinking these rejections are based on my subject's gender. I'm wondering if the rejections I got weren't because I had "insufficient evidence and therefore my subject was insignificant" or "The evidence would be sufficient and your subject significant if only you both had penises". I had to change my username just to not be harassed during feedback sessions.

There are many wikipedia pages with outright wrong information just because the male contributors of this site deem it correct. Does wikipedia really care about being accurate? Or do you care about spinning facts to your misogynist agenda? I'll probably get a lot of shit for this question or completely ignored, but just know this is the stuff of class action lawsuits. And women are not shutting up.

Nomorewriting (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review No legal threats. I'm curious as to how you know the gender of the person on the other end of the computer.
 * Yes, there are articles with incorrect information. It isn't because "male contributors of this site deem it correct", it is because this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Feel free to pitch in and point out this incorrect information.
 * The sources you have offered are not in depth coverage of the subject. Sources need to be more than brief mentions or basic announcements. I get that it is frustrating to have something you worked hard on declined, but there is no conspiracy here. We don't know your gender unless you tell us. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please read WP:NPA, Nomorewriting. Lobbing personal attacks and accusing people of misogyny because they felt your draft didn't meet our General Notability Guideline, is a disproportionate response, and personal attacks are not tolerated. No idea what the deal is with the article about your uncle, but it is possible he created it without submitting it for community scrutiny. There are a lot of poorly-written, promotional, self-serving articles at Wikipedia. The existence of those articles doesn't suggest that they were approved any more than trash on the street suggests that littering is approved. And no, he shouldn't have written that article about himself, because it's unethical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My name was obviously female and so was my subject's name. It's called common sense. And what I said was a warning, not a threat. I never said "I am going to sue" I said this sexism is going to get you sued. There's a difference. I could tell the reviewers were men by their username and the way they spoke to me, just like they could tell I was female by my username. In case you didn't read my comment all the way through, I mentioned having to change my username because it was too female. Tell yourself what you want, but your dismissal of my comment tells me you're probably a man too.
 * I'd like to add that I never called anyone out specifically, so your claim that I personally attacked anyone is completely unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend much time on this, but just to clarify, suggesting that an editor declined the draft because the subject lacks a penis, would qualify in my opinion as a personal attack, whether you mentioned them by name or not. Moving to more fruitful areas, the draft was declined because the reviewer felt that you did not demonstrate that the subject meets our General Notability Guideline. If you want to argue that the draft does meet the criteria, then feel free to do so. Which of the sources in the article are all three: independent, reliable, and speak about the subject in great detail? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, alrighty then. You just proved my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)